Assessing the Costs Attributed to Project Delays · Assessing the Costs Attributed to ... 2009 and...

Assessing the Costs Attributed to Project Delays

Texas Transportation Institute

The Texas A&M University System College Station, Texas

September 2011

0-6581

Assessing the Costs Attributed to Project Delays

by

Curtis Beaty, P.E.

Associate Research Engineer

David Ellis, Ph.D.

Research Scientist

Jon Epps, Ph.D., P.E.

Executive Associate Director

Brianne Glover

Associate Transportation Researcher

Nicolas Norboge

Assistant Transportation Researcher

and

Bill Stockton, Ph.D., P.E.

Executive Associate Agency Director

Project 0‐6581

Performed in cooperation with the

Texas Department of Transportation

September 2011

TEXAS TRANSPORTATION INSTITUTE

The Texas A&M University System

College Station, Texas 77843‐3135

P a g e | 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

All departments of transportation (DOTs) face delays on highway projects. They often have anecdotal accounts of

the significant financial impact that the delay of a highway project had on project costs, local businesses and

commuters, and other users of the highway. But in many cases hard data on the financial impact are lacking. This

project for the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) aims to develop a simple but sound methodology for

estimating the cost of delaying most types of highway projects. The project draws on two main resources to

produce reliable estimates of impacts:

Existing data from projects completed in fiscal year (FY) 2009 and reported in TxDOT’s Design Construction

Information System (DCIS).

Methodologies developed for other applications that can be applied to estimating the cost of project delay.

DelayduringProjectPhases

Delay can occur in any phase in the project:

Planning/scoping phase: Delay can be significant when litigation is initiated.

Development phase: Permitting (environmental, fish and wildlife, railroad, etc.), right‐of‐way acquisition, and

utility agreements can be significant causes of delay.

Contracting phase: Generally, this phase has less incidence of delay but can still have issues.

Construction phase: This phase has numerous opportunities for delay and is often the delay most visible to

the public.

Project delay almost always has costs associated with it, which is not to say that all project delay is a waste of time

and public money. In many instances of project delay initiated by TxDOT, the reason for the delay is to make an

improvement in the design or construction of the project that will ultimately deliver better value to the public.

EstimationModel

This project developed a simplified model that incorporates 16 user‐controlled variables and produces estimates of

the effect of project delay on personal and commercial travel and the cost to the general economy. Three projects

of varying size were used as examples:

The “small project” illustrates delay to an $11.4 million, four‐lane roadway project in a rural setting. The

project’s 33‐month delay produced an additional $3.5 million cost to the economy, or $96,000 for every

month of delay.

The “medium project” illustrates delay to a $49.6 million, urban freeway project. The project’s 58‐month

delay produced an additional $17.8 million cost to the economy, or almost $300,000 for every month of

delay.

The “large project” illustrates delay to an $82.2 million interstate highway improvement in a large metro

area. The project’s 11‐month delay produced an additional $5.1 million cost to the economy, or $447,000

for each month of delay.

ASSESSING THE COSTS ATTRIBUTED TO PROJECT DELAYS

CaseStudies

Finally, the report includes three atypical case studies that demonstrate a range of delay issues, all with costs

attached including litigation costs and termination fees paid to contractors. These costs are in addition to the types

of costs calculated in the model discussed above.


PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THE REPORT

This report helps identify the costs of delays to completing roadway projects, and a methodology for estimating

those additional costs to the state and to users. The report also addresses three basic elements related to project

delay:

Definitions and types of project delay.

Methodology for estimating project‐specific delay costs.

Case studies that demonstrate the application of the methodology.

For this report, the Texas Transportation Institute (TTI) examined recent TxDOT projects that meet the following

requirements:

Construction projects (e.g., new construction, reconstruction, and rehabilitation).

Projects that had sufficient data requirements in order to be analyzed (e.g., projects in metropolitan

planning organization [MPO] jurisdictions with readily available travel demand data).

The following types of transportation projects were excluded from this analysis:

Projects that experienced delays due to lack of funding.

Transportation projects with a total project investment of less than $7 million.

Maintenance projects.

In most cases examined in this study, delay occurred because the project missed a milestone according to the project schedule dates established by the project engineer and the respective TxDOT district. This study did not examine the scheduling process that occurs during the planning/scoping phase of the project life cycle to see if that aspect of a project (i.e., overly optimistic schedules) might be an inherent source of delay.

TERMINOLOGY

The following glossary defines certain terms and phrases used within this report. It also clarifies what is and is not

included in the various types of costs associated with project delays. Appendix A contains a list of acronyms used in

this document.

Direct Costs of Project Delay—actual out‐of‐pocket costs borne by any stakeholder affected by a delay in project

delivery. Most of the direct costs accrue to TxDOT and, therefore, are passed on to the public in the form of less‐

efficient use of taxpayer resources.

Indirect Costs of Project Delay—hidden costs that are borne by stakeholders, often a much greater amount than

the direct costs of project delay. Indirect costs include:

Wasted traveler fuel and time.

Economic impacts in the vicinity of the project.

Loss of business efficiency for those businesses that rely on the transportation system for their

productivity.


Project Delay—In estimating the difference in planned and actual project completion date, this report assumes

that the planned completion date is the date from the notice to proceed plus the number of days allowed for

construction. The actual completion date is when the project is open for public use.

Project Stages—usually divided into four distinct stages: planning, development, contracting, and construction.

Delays that occur during the various stages typically affect different stakeholders (e.g., the state, contractors,

businesses, or the public) in different ways. Once a project has been identified, its life cycle includes defined stages

and milestones. Figure 1 illustrates the general project stages, basic activities that occur in each stage, and some of

the major milestones.

Figure 1. Life Cycle of a Typical Roadway Project.1

1 C.A. Quiroga, E. Kraus, J.H. Overman, and N.A. Koncz. Integration of Utility and Environmental Activities in the

Project Development Process. Report 0‐6065‐1, Texas Transportation Institute, http://tti.tamu.edu/documents/0‐

6065‐1.pdf.


P a g e | 5

WHO BEARS THE COST OF PROJECT DELAY?

Ultimately, the public bears the cost of project delay.

Three major groups of stakeholders are affected by project delay:

The agency.

The public.

Contractors (and their suppliers).

Figure 2 provides a conceptual schematic diagram of how direct and indirect costs at various stages of the project

timeline can affect these stakeholders.

The costs of project delays can be classified as either direct or indirect costs to the public, the agency, or

contractors. Some costs to the agency or contractors associated with contract delay are recoverable by the entity

incurring the cost; others are not. As shown in Figure 2, ultimately, all costs are eventually borne by the public.

Direct costs are divided into three categories:

1. Agency costs. The cost cited in Figure 2 is the expense associated with additional engineering services.

These costs may or may not be recoverable. In some cases, the agency can recover the costs if they are

due to errors by others. If the costs are not recoverable, the expense becomes an indirect cost that is

ultimately paid by the public.

2. The cost in extra fuel and time wasted by the public because of project delay. The public is not

reimbursed for that cost.

3. Contractor costs. The contractor absorbs costs due to unproductive labor (e.g., the contractor is told by

the agency or some other authority to cease construction or has to, for some other reason, pay labor

costs on a standby basis). The agency may reimburse the contractor. But for the agency, the cost is likely

not reimbursable and is ultimately borne by the public. If the cost is not reimbursable to the contractor

directly, it becomes an indirect cost to the contractor that is ultimately transferred to the agency or the

public in some other form (e.g., higher contract prices in the future).


P a g e | 6

Figure 2. Stakeholder Impacts of Direct and Indirect Project Costs.

Who Pays?Is it Reimbursable?Who Pays?Is it

Reimbursable?Who Pays?Is it Reimbursable?Who Pays?Type of Cost

Cost of Project Delay

Direct Cost

Public (Fuel/Time)

No

Agency (Engineering

Costs)

Yes Contractor Yes, Indirectly Agency No Public

No, Becomes Indirect

Public

Contractor (Unproductive

Labor)

Yes Agency No Public

No, Becomes Indirect

Agency No Public

Indirect Cost

Public (Economic Loses)

No

Agency (Reallocation of Funds)

No Public

Contractor (Opportunity

Cost)Yes Agency No Public


P a g e | 7

CoststothePublic

Direct and indirect costs paid initially by the agency are ultimately borne by the public. For example, when a

project is delayed early in the process, engineering, right‐of‐way, material, labor, or other cost elements may

increase because of the delay. This is a direct cost of project delay that is ultimately paid by the public.

Additionally, because TxDOT has a finite supply of funds with which to operate in a given year, the increased costs

will likely mean that other previously scheduled and budgeted projects will have to be postponed and their

benefits delayed. These are considered indirect costs to the public.

CoststoTravelersintheAffectedCorridor

Two of the most recognized costs to the public are associated with wasted time and fuel cost. We all place a value

on our time. When a project is delayed and improvements to the particular corridor postponed, the benefits

associated with that improvement (e.g., higher speeds and shorter commute times) are not realized. Furthermore,

with the slower commute speeds, fuel efficiency may be reduced, resulting in higher fuel costs for travelers.

CoststoBusinessesandTheirConsumers

One of the most important cost aspects of project delay is the impact on businesses and consumers. Businesses

are affected by roadway congestion in much the same way as motorists. As speeds are reduced, operating costs

(i.e., driver time, vehicle operating costs, fuel costs, etc.) are increased. Ultimately, these costs are passed on to

the consumer. But there can be other, more pervasive impacts as well.

Almost all surveys that ask businesses about factors that influence location decisions show similar results. They

indicate that businesses most value the following when deciding where to locate a facility:

A fair and reasonable tax system.

An educated and available workforce.

Access to markets.

Reduced mobility affects businesses in two ways: it reduces the supply of qualified workers who live within a

reasonable commute distance, and it increases the cost of accessing markets, causing increased shipping costs for

both raw materials and finished products.

With respect to labor markets, as mobility is reduced and commute times lengthen, the labor pool within a

one‐hour commute to a particular location is reduced. To attract a wider number of potential employees, some

companies may find it necessary to offer higher wages to offset the higher costs of commuting. If they do, those

higher wages are potentially reflected in higher finished product cost, hindering the company’s ability to compete

in a market. If the costs of higher wages are not reflected in higher product costs, then income to the company’s

shareholders is reduced.

Similarly, reduced mobility affects the cost of finished goods when fuel cost, driver time, and vehicle‐operating

costs are increased because of lower speeds on the roadways.

CoststoContractors

Contractor costs also increase because of project delay. If a project is delayed after a contractor has mobilized a

workforce and obtained equipment, consumables, and other materials, the contractor must often absorb those


P a g e | 8

costs. This reduces income to the company and to its shareholders. To the extent that those costs are recoverable,

they are passed on to consumers during a subsequent project.

In addition, the uncertainty associated with project delays can impede a contractor from bidding on other projects.

These lost opportunities can reduce competition, which may result in higher construction bids on other projects.

Conclusion

With few exceptions, the public ultimately bears the cost of delays—traveler costs, added transportation costs in

retail products, loss of business efficiency (resulting in higher costs and lower profits), and fewer public (TxDOT)

dollars available to spend on a variety of project needs.

SAMPLE METHODOLOGY FOR ESTIMATING COST IMPACTS

OF PROJECT DELAY

TypesofExampleProjects

Table 1 shows three different example projects:

“Small projects” range in cost from $7 million to $20 million.

“Medium projects” range in cost from $20 million to $80 million.

“Large projects” cost more than $80 million.

The small project illustrates the costs associated with a four‐lane roadway in a rural setting. In this example, the

roadway is a 2.7‐mile‐long widening project on FM 1488 in the Houston District. The project stretched from just

east of SH 242 to just west of IH 45. The two‐lane roadway was widened to a four‐lane divided roadway. The

project began in March 2009 after 33.5 months of delay. The cost associated with this delay is estimated at

$96,000 per month, or a total of more than $3.5 million.

The medium project depicts the cost associated with an urban freeway project, in this instance a 2.6‐mile‐long

widening project on US 59 in the Houston District. The project segment stretched north of FM 1314 to just north of

Northpark Drive. The freeway was widened to consist of eight main lanes with two three‐lane frontage roads. After

almost five years of delay, the project began in August 2002. The estimated cost of delay per month was $297,000

per month, or a total of $17.8 million over the entire delay period.

The final example is the large project, showing costs associated with an interstate project in a large metro area—

an interchange reconstruction project at IH 10 and IH 410 in the San Antonio District. The 1.5‐mile‐long project was

from south of Callaghan Road to south of North Crossroads. This project began in July 2002 and experienced an

11‐month delay during construction. The cost of delay per month was an estimated $447,000 per month, or

$5.1 million for the entire 11‐month period.


P a g e | 9

Table 1. Sample Costs to the Public Resulting from Project Delays.

Estimated Cost of Project Delay

Project Description

Project‐Related Variables

Small Project Medium Project Large Project

Project Cost (Millions) $11.4 $49.6 $82.2

Total Months Project Was Delayed 33.5 58.8 11.1

Change in Highway Cost Index (HCI) (during Delay) 11% 29% 3%

Travel‐Related Variables

Length of Project 2.7 2.6 1.5

Average Daily Traffic—Before Improvement 21,000 91,000 158,000

Average Daily Traffic—After Improvement 26,000 99,000 196,000

Travel Speed—Before Improvement 46 58 59

Travel Speed—After Improvement 50 60 61

Percent Trucks—Before Improvement 4.5% 10.0% 3.9%

Percent Trucks—After Improvement 4.5% 10.5% 3.9%

Commonly Used Assumptions

Persons per Vehicle 1.25 1.25 1.25

Value of Time—Cars $16.28 $16.28 $16.28

Value of Time—Trucks $107.42 $107.42 $107.42

Cost of Fuel—Cars $3.78 $3.78 $3.78

Cost of Fuel—Trucks $3.95 $3.95 $3.95

Return on Investment Associated with Economic Impacts

8.0% 8.0% 8.0%

Monthly Cost of Project Delay

Wasted Time from Project Delay—Personal $26,363 $31,248 $63,902

Wasted Fuel from Project Delay—Personal $19,260 $8,510 $7,421

Wasted Time from Project Delay—Commercial $6,557 $18,410 $13,689

Wasted Fuel from Project Delay—Commercial $1,094 $3,334 $1,413

Total Direct Cost to Travelers $52,180 $58,167 $85,012

Construction Cost Increase per Month (based on HCI) $32,957 $191,956 $283,624

Sub‐total, Direct Costs $85,137 $250,123 $368,636

Economic Impact of Project Delay $10,841 $47,170 $78,172

Total Cost of Project Delay per Month $95,978 $297,293 $446,808

Total Cost of Project Delay $3,551,431 $17,764,387 $5,127,080


P a g e | 10

DiscussionofMediumProjectExample

Using the medium project as an example illustrates how project delays can ultimately cost the public. In this

example, a $49.6 million project was delayed a total of 58.8 months. The following conditions on the roadway

were present:

91,000 vehicles in average daily traffic.

Commercial trucks making up 10 percent of vehicles.

1.25 persons per automobile.

58 miles per hour average speed before the improvements.

60 miles per hour average speed after the improvements.

a 29 percent increase in the price of construction during the time the project was delayed.2

The medium project, as shown in Table 1, demonstrates that when applying standard values of time for both

individuals and commercial vehicles—and assuming a conservative 8 percent return on investment in roadway

infrastructure3 (national studies indicate the return is more likely in the 10 to 12 percent range)—the 58.8‐month

delay had a total cost of $17.8 million, or almost $300,000 per month.

Of that cost, slightly over $250,000 per month was the result of construction price increases estimated by using the

HCI. Almost all of this increase resulted from the significant increases in commodity prices (e.g., cement, base

material, steel, asphalt, and fuel) experienced during the period. Almost $50,000 per month was the result of

delays in commuter and business delivery times, while almost $12,000 per month was the result of increased fuel

costs associated with higher consumption at slower speeds. Finally, almost $50,000 per month was associated with

the economic impact of delay.

The expansion of the roadway allowed substantially more throughput, though only modest changes in speed.

Because of the induced demand associated with expanded roadways, speeds can actually stay the same or slightly

decrease as more vehicles use the freeway. When that occurs, vehicles are drawn to the new/expanded facility

from other highways and/or arterial streets, thereby improving travel times, reducing wasted fuel, and generating

a positive economic effect on those particular roadways. In general, however, the magnitude of the impact of

project delay depends on traffic volume and speed, percent trucks, spikes in construction costs, and duration of

delay.

Also, because of the number of variables involved (and their relative importance depending upon roadway

location, roadway type, availability of transportation alternatives, traffic mix, cost of materials, etc.), in almost

every instance where a project is delayed, the cost of delay can vary significantly. As a result, every instance of

construction delay, even on roadways that appear to be similar in nature, can result in a different cost of delay

estimate. See Appendix B for a description of the variables and methodology used for the cost calculations.

2 Project inflation calculations taken from the Highway Cost Index produced by the Texas Department of

Transportation (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot‐info/cst/hci_binder.pdf).

3 M. Ishaq Nadiri and Theofanis P. Mamuneas. “Contribution of Highway Capital to Output and Productivity Growth

in the US Economy and Industries.” http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/gro98cvr.htm.


P a g e | 11

SUMMARY

This brief research project examined the costs that result when a roadway project is delayed. It examined both

direct and indirect impacts of project delays and found that the public almost always bears the costs, either

directly through wasted fuel and time or indirectly through less‐efficient use of the limited supply of roadway

funds. This project did not directly examine the value of any of the delays, though it was evident while examining

the data that many delays actually produced benefits that equaled or exceeded the cost of the delay.

The simple methodology developed in this project allows TxDOT to quickly estimate the cost of delay to a roadway

project. Using that methodology, researchers examined three actual projects. The smallest of the three resulted in

project delay costs of $96,000 per month, while the largest project resulted in project delay costs of $447,000.

While the methodology is simple, there is no rule of thumb because project delay costs depend on several

variables, primarily location, traffic, construction costs, and travel speeds.

The methodology also includes a monthly local economic impact component, which for the three examples ranged

from $10,000 per month to $78,000 per month.

The appendices to this report contain data, terminology, and methodologies developed in this research:

Appendix A—List of Acronyms.

Appendix B—Description of Calculations Used in Estimating Project Delay Costs.

Appendix C—General Information Regarding Delays.

Appendix D—Additional Examples of Project Delay.

Appendix E—Typical Causes of Delay.

Appendix F—Delayed Projects Studied.

Appendix D illustrates case examples of projects or circumstances that either have a largely undefined impact or

are too complex for this straightforward methodology to assess the delay impacts.


P a g e | A ‐ 1

APPENDIX A—LIST OF ACRONYMS

AGUA Aquifer Gardens for Urban Areas

CAMPO Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization

CE Categorical Exclusion

DCIS Design Construction Information System

DEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement

EA Environmental Assessment

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement

FHWA Federal Highway Administration

FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact

FY Fiscal Year

HCI Highway Cost Index

MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

PS&E Plan, Specification, and Estimation

RMA Regional Mobility Authority

ROD Record of Decision

ROW Right of Way

TTI Texas Transportation Institute

TURF Texans United for Reform and Freedom

TxDOT Texas Department of Transportation


P a g e | B ‐ 1

APPENDIX B—DESCRIPTION OF CALCULATIONS USED IN ESTIMATING

PROJECT DELAY COSTS

Variables

The output of the model provides both direct and indirect cost estimates. Direct cost estimates include wasted

time and fuel for both personal and commercial travel. Indirect cost includes the economic impact of project delay.

The spreadsheet‐based model uses 17 variables divided into three categories to calculate direct and indirect costs

associated with project delay. Those variables include the following.

CalculationsTab

Project Cost—in millions of dollars. This is the contracted amount.

Average Annual Daily Traffic before the Improvement—determined for the segment that most closely

represents the roadway segment under construction.

Average Annual Daily Traffic after the Improvement—determined for the segment that most closely

represents the roadway segment under construction.

Percent of Trucks before Improvement—determined for the segment that most closely represents the

roadway segment under construction.

Percent of Trucks after Improvement—determined for the segment that most closely represents the


Persons per Vehicle—a default value of 1.25 persons per personal vehicle.

Average Speed before Improvement—determined for the segment that most closely represents the


Average Speed after Improvement—determined for the segment that most closely represents the


Length of Segment in Miles—determined from the construction contact.

Personal Value of Time—determined by using the value of personal time used in the most recent Urban

Mobility Report published by TTI.

Commercial Value of Time—determined by using the value of personal time used in the most recent

Urban Mobility Report published by TTI.

Return on Investment—the default is 8 percent annually, based on a Federal Highway Administration

report by Nadiri and Mamuneas.3

Percent of Increase in Highway Cost Index—determined by using the Highway Cost Index published

monthly by TxDOT.

Total Months of Delay—determined using the dataset of highway construction projects furnished for this

study by TxDOT.

FuelTab

Fuel Price—the current fuel price.


P a g e | B ‐ 2

EconomicImpactTab

Multiplier—an estimate of the general multiplier for economic activity based on the state’s economic

profile.

Percent Profit—the average profit margin across all business based on the state’s economic profile.

Calculations

The following general steps are used in calculating an estimate of the cost of project delay:

1. Convert daily traffic into monthly traffic volume.

2. Calculate the travel time for the segment under construction for both before the improvement was

started and after it was completed.

3. Calculate the total hours of travel over the segment for both before the improvement was started and

after it was completed.

4. Calculate the total personal hours of travel using the number of personal vehicles traveling the segment

multiplied by average occupancy. Calculations are performed for both before and after the improvement.

5. Calculate the total vehicle hours of travel for commercial vehicles. Calculations are performed for both

before and after the improvement.

6. Calculate the net hours of delay by subtracting the “before” and “after” delay for both personal and

commercial travel.

7. Multiply the excess hours of delay for personal and commercial travel by the respective value of time to

obtain the delay cost associated with the construction delay.

8. Determine the net cost of fuel for commercial vehicles using a fuel/speed curve developed for use in TTI’s

Urban Mobility Report, comparing the amount of fuel consumed at the “before” speed versus the “after”

speed, and using the respective volumes for the two periods.

9. Multiply the difference in fuel consumption at the “before” speed and the “after” speed by the prevailing

retail fuel price to obtain the fuel cost for personal and commercial travel associated with the

construction delay.

10. Calculate the economic impact by multiplying the capital investment by the rate of return (assumed to be

8 percent per annum) plus the annual return multiplied by the assumed rate returned to profit.

11. Calculate the cost of construction inflation by taking the difference between the contract amount at the

date the project begins minus the discounted value of the contract at the date the project was originally

scheduled to begin. Use the HCI to calculate the discount rate.


P a g e | C ‐ 1

APPENDIX C—GENERAL INFORMATION REGARDING DELAYS

This appendix contains a general explanation of three typical areas in which projects can be delayed: regulatory

delays, environmental review delays, and legal actions. Because of the statutory nature of these processes, TxDOT

must follow defined procedures throughout each area until the final resolution.

RegulatoryDelays

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires federal agencies to outline the environmental impact their

proposed actions will have and to assess the impacts of alternative actions.4 TxDOT projects funded in any part by

federal monies are required to gain environmental approval through the NEPA regulatory process defined by three

levels of analysis as shown in Table C‐1.

Table C‐1. NEPA Levels of Analysis.

NEPA Level Description

Categorical Exclusion (CE)

This status is given to those projects that do not significantly impact the environment.

Environmental Assessment (EA)

An EA must be conducted when the environmental significance is unknown. The results of an EA can lead to one of the following:

Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI).

Environmental Impact Statement.

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)

An EIS is a more in‐depth report that must include consideration of alternatives and public involvement. The EIS consists of four steps: 1. Notice of Intent (NOI). 2. Draft EIS (DEIS). 3. Final EIS (FEIS). 4. Record of Decision (ROD).

If a final EIS is not submitted within three years from the date of the draft EIS, or there have been no major steps

to advance the action three years after a final EIS (e.g., authority to begin final design or to acquire right of way), a

written evaluation should be prepared to determine if a supplemental EIS is warranted.5 A supplemental EIS is

necessary if considerable changes have been made to the project, or there is significant new information available.

A supplemental EIS is developed like any other EIS, excluding the need for scoping. Furthermore, once a project

4 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Environmental Impact Statement Process.

http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/eisdata.html.

5 CFR Title 23, §771.129. http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text‐

idx?c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title23/23cfr771_main_02.tpl.


P a g e | C ‐ 2

has received an ROD, FONSI, or CE, a verification that the designation remains in place should be made prior to any

major approvals or grants.5

EnvironmentalReviewDelays

Projects that do not necessarily fall under NEPA regulations may still have environmental impacts that must be

addressed. The safety of roadway users and the cost of avoiding environmental impacts are factors that must be

weighed against environmental and aesthetic interests. A concerned citizen or environmental group may delay the

project by requesting changes that mitigate the harm or by bringing suit in a state court (as opposed to a NEPA suit

in federal court).

LegalActions

When a lawsuit is filed in reference to a proposed or active project, the party bringing suit may seek an injunction

to bring current work to a halt regardless of the stage of progress. If the court grants the injunction, the project will

be suspended in its entirety or in part until a court can hear arguments from both sides and rule on the matter. If

the injunction is denied, the opposing party can still file suit with the hope of either receiving a favorable ruling

before damage has been done or TxDOT addressing the problem to avoid the additional cost and delay.


P a g e | D ‐ 1

APPENDIX D—ADDITIONAL EXAMPLES OF PROJECT DELAY

TTI selected three additional projects as examples to illustrate the different causes of delay, costs associated with

the delay, and potential complexity in estimating delay costs from one project to another. The following projects

were selected:

• US 281 (Bexar County) in the San Antonio District (major highway expansion delayed several years).

• SH 45 Southeast (Travis County) in the Austin District (new connector highway delayed several years).

• SH 16 (Bandera County) in the San Antonio District (safety improvements delayed several months).

Each case study examines the type of delay incurred, a timeline of actions taken, and the ultimate result of the

delay, as of 2009. Researchers did not select projects because they represent the typical delayed project or signify

usual resolutions to overcome delays. Rather, researchers chose these projects because they illustrate the

magnitude and complexity of actions taken to resolve the issues that cause project delay. Project delays examined

in these cases fit into one or more of the following categories: regulatory, environmental, and/or legal. Appendix C

contains a general description of the processes associated with each category and how they can cause project

delays.

US281—SanAntonio

The US 281 project is an example of an initially straightforward project that became very complex because of

multiple and fractured delays. TxDOT employed a variety of improvements to reduce the impacts of the various

delays.

The segment of US 281 in San Antonio studied stretches north from Bitters Road (south of Loop 1604) to Borgfeld

Road (Figure D‐1).6 Major intersections included in this improvement are Loop 1604, Sonterra Boulevard, Encino

Rio Road, Evans Road, Stone Oak Parkway, and Marshall Road.

6 Map source: Alamo Regional Mobility Authority, http://www.alamorma.org/index.cfm/projects/us‐281‐eis/.


P a g e | D ‐ 2

Figure D‐1. Map of US 281 Expansion Project.

While the project involved multiple legal battles, this study focuses primarily on delays caused by the

environmental regulatory process. Lawsuits filed by citizens’ groups required the environmental studies to be

repeated and, at times, restarted the regulatory process required to gain environmental clearance.

Because of the delays, several short‐term fixes have been proposed as separate projects requiring no

environmental analysis to help alleviate the congestion. Improvements to the US 281/Loop 1604 interchange were

eventually developed as one of these separate projects, independent of the sizeable US 281 North expansion

project.

Timeline

OriginalEnvironmentalAssessment

In 1984, the US 281 North expansion from Bitters Road to Evans Road was given environmental clearance after an

EA was conducted.

In the early 1990s, a segment of this project was constructed from Bitters Road to Sonterra Boulevard.

In 2000, the environmental clearance for construction from Sonterra Boulevard to Evans Road was reevaluated

because more than 15 years had passed since the first EA was conducted.

In 2001, development from Loop 1604 to Evans Road was approved by the MPO. The MPO dedicated about half of

the estimated needed funds ($42 million) in its 2002–2004 Transportation Improvement Program.

In 2003 and 2004, the US 281 North project was studied to determine whether tolling new lanes would be a

practical funding solution, and the following year the MPO voted to construct the new lanes as privately funded

toll facilities.

In 2005, TxDOT received unsolicited bids for a privatized toll project. That same year environmental clearance was

granted for the segment stretching from Evans Road to Borgfeld Road.


P a g e | D ‐ 3

2005:FirstLawsuit

Construction of an $80 million expansion segment from Loop 1604 to Marshall Road was halted at the end of 2005

when local environmental groups—Aquifer Guardians for Urban Areas (AGUA) and Texans Uniting for Reform and

Freedom (TURF)—sought a court order enjoining the continuation of construction. The Federal Highway

Administration (FHWA) withdrew environmental approval because of the lawsuit, and a new EA commenced.

2007:SecondEnvironmentalAssessment7

In 2007, TxDOT completed a two‐year, $2 million EA that combined all projects on US 281 from Loop 1604 to

Borgfeld Road. As a result, FHWA published a FONSI that ended the construction moratorium. That same year,

Texas passed legislation that changed the way privatized transportation tolling operated, and the Alamo Regional

Mobility Authority (RMA) took control of the US 281 project.

2008:SecondLawsuit

In 2008, AGUA and TURF once again brought suit to question the environmental clearances that were currently in

place. During the suit, TxDOT requested a 60‐day stay to review the records. During this period of review, TxDOT

found irregularities in the procurement of scientific services, leading FHWA to retract the previously issued

environmental clearance. Any future expansion projects in the US 281 corridor would be required to prepare a

more complex EIS. Three weeks after the FHWA pronouncement, the Alamo RMA began pursuing an EIS that they

estimated would take three to five years to complete. Consequently, the district judge administratively closed the

second lawsuit.

2009:CategoricalExclusions

With the US 281 North expansion projects on hold awaiting a new EIS, the Alamo RMA continued to search for new

ways to relieve congestion and improve safety within the limits of the law. In March 2009, the Texas

Transportation Commission approved $80 million in federal stimulus funding to aid a separately proposed

$130 million improvement project at the US 281/Loop 1604 interchange. The project would include construction of

four direct connectors from Loop 1604 to US 281. The Alamo RMA conducted new biological surveys of the area

and held two public hearings. In February 2010, FHWA and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service approved a CE by

granting the interchange project environmental clearance. A portion of the federal stimulus funds must be spent

by 2015.

In the fall of 2009, another project to transform a segment of US 281 into a “Super Street” received environmental

clearance through a CE. This conversion will aid in congestion relief without the addition of new lanes until the EIS

is completed.

7 Alamo RMA. Alamo RMA Responds to Latest Lawsuit Filed by TURF, February 26, 2008. Memorandum, FY 06

Lettings, Dianna F. Noble, P.E., January 3, 2007.


P a g e | D ‐ 4

2010:ThirdLawsuit

In August 2010, AGUA filed suit claiming that the US 281/Loop 1604 interchange project violates the Endangered

Species Act and endangers the Edwards Aquifer. In December, AGUA filed an injunction to stop the impending

construction for the duration of the suit.

CurrentStatus

A district judge issued an advisory in February 2011 stating that he would rule on the injunction to halt the

interchange project within six months. On March 2, 2011, construction began on the US 281/Loop 1604

interchange and will continue while awaiting the court’s ruling. Furthermore, the EIS for the US 281 North

expansion project is underway, and final approval is estimated for 2013. Figure 7 displays the project timeline,

when the original delay began, and when the short‐term projects were implemented to help reduce congestion. In

addition to the project timeline, Figure D‐2 also shows the length of delay the agency and the public encountered

because of the project.

Figure D‐2. Historical Timeline of US 281 North Expansion Project Delay.

Costs

US281NorthExpansionProject

Before the first lawsuit in 2005, the low bid to construct the expansion was $83,653,101. The cost to terminate the

project that same year was $7 million excluding litigation expenses. Today, the low bid for the same scope of work

is estimated to be $2.5 million more than the 2005 bid.

1984 1989 1994 1999 2004 2009

Project

Agency

Travelers

Timeline of Delay

Project in Progress

Delay

Short‐Term Projects


P a g e | D ‐ 5

US281/Loop1604InterchangeProject

The Loop 1604 interchange project was a short‐term project created to help relieve congestion while the US 281

North expansion project was put on hold. The interchange, which is not a tolled project, was partially funded with

federal stimulus dollars. The Alamo RMA stated that if the injunction is granted, the delay could cost them up to

$30,000 a day.8

In addition to the $9.5 million costs specifically mentioned above, additional personal, business, and economic

costs are also associated with the project delay.

SH45Southeast—Austin

The SH 45 Southeast project is an example of a project on a new alignment, which is generally not suitable for a

simplified analysis. This project connects two major highways in a growing network. In the absence of “before”

conditions for comparison, a delay impact analysis on a project of this type would require the use of the local

travel demand model maintained by the MPO to identify the number of prospective users.

The segment of SH 45 in Austin studied is a 7.4‐mile stretch running east/west between IH 35 at FM 1327 and the

junction of SH 130 and US 183 (Figure D‐3).9 Major intersections along the four‐lane tolled highway include IH 35,

North Turnersville Road, FM 1625, and SH 130/US 183. The roadway was proposed as an alternate route for

through traffic that would aid in relieving congestion on other major routes (such as IH 35 through downtown

Austin). This project encountered delays involving a lawsuit based upon the NEPA’s EIS requirements.

8 Vianna Davilla, quoting RMA Director of Community Development Leroy Alloway. “Interchange Work Starts in

Face of Controversy.” San Antonio Express‐News, March 3, 2011.

9 Map source: TxDOT, http://www.texastollways.com/austintollroads/english/map.htm.


P a g e | D ‐ 6

Figure D‐3. Map of SH 45 Southeast Project.

Timeline

OriginalSchedule

In 2003, the DEIS required by NEPA was completed, and a public hearing was held that summer. That fall, the FEIS

was submitted, and FHWA granted the project environmental clearance in 2004. That same year, TxDOT awarded a

contract to design and build the highway in the following two years to Zachry Construction Company.

2004:Lawsuit

In 2004, local environmental groups Save Our Springs Alliance and Save Barton Creek Association brought suit in

federal district court to stop the project. Together the membership of these two groups totals approximately

4,500 people. They claimed the EIS failed to consider an adequate range of alternate routes and did not fully

examine the impacts (direct, indirect, secondary, and cumulative). They argued that to completely assess the

secondary and cumulative impacts of the southeast project, the future southwest project would need to be

analyzed in conjunction. The future southwest segment (segment 3) would cross the Edwards Aquifer recharge

zone. The suit and project were put on hold so a new environmental study of the southeast segment could be

performed.


P a g e | D ‐ 7

2007:ProjectRestarted

The new environmental study was completed two years later, reaching the same conclusions as the previous

analysis. FHWA approved the new study in the summer of 2006, and the federal court dismissed the case. In April

2007, a new contract was awarded to Balfour Beatty Infrastructure, Inc., and T.J. Lambrecht Construction, Inc., and

construction began the following July. SH 45 Southeast opened in June 2009. Figure D‐4 illustrates the project

timeline including when the delay began and when the project restarted. Also shown is the length of delay

encountered by the agency and the public because of the lawsuit.

Figure D‐4. Historical Timeline of SH 45 Southeast Project Delay.

Costs

The project was originally estimated at $154.3 million as part of a $2.2 billion toll road package approved by the

Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO). The estimate included $137.4 million for construction

costs. TxDOT paid $1.6 million to terminate the project in 2004. The ensuing environmental analysis cost an

additional $300,000. During the two years the environmental analysis was being conducted, the cost to acquire

right of way rose roughly $5.2 million. Since the project was originally awarded as a design/build project as

opposed to design/bid/build, the engineering plans remained incomplete. This meant that an additional $950,000

had to be spent to finalize the engineering plans.10 The new low bid for the construction portion of the project was

$139.7 million—$2.3 million more than the original estimate.

10 Texas Department of Transportation. Draft Testimony, “Accelerating the Project Delivery Process: Eliminating

Bureaucratic Red Tape and Making Every Dollar Count.” House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee

Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, February 15, 2011.

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Project

Agency

Travelers

Timeline of Delay

Project in Progress

Delay

New Schedule


P a g e | D ‐ 8

Additionally, a project under construction on SH 130 was impacted by the SH 45 Southeast delay, and expenses to

settle the matter with the developer cost TxDOT approximately $15.5 million.

In total, the costs associated with project delay on this project exceed an estimated $22.6 million plus an

uncalculated amount of commercial and personal delay and economic costs.

SH16—Bandera

This SH 16 road safety improvement project runs 8 miles from Winans Crossing toward Medina in Bandera County

(Figure D‐5).11 The rural state highway originally consisted of two 10‐foot‐wide lanes with no shoulders. The

improvements would widen the existing lanes to 12 feet and add 5‐foot shoulders to each side. The current TxDOT

standards call for 7 feet of clear zone. The clear zone provides a safe area for drivers to stop or recover their

vehicle after veering off the travel lane and is measured from the edge of the travel lane.12 This project was

challenged with a state lawsuit concerning the removal of five mature pecan and black walnut trees located at the

intersection of SH 16 and Kyle Ranch Road. These trees, estimated to be 180 to 310 years old, sit directly adjacent

to the original road and were scheduled for removal to facilitate the widening of the road.

Timeline13

2005:RuralTransportationMeeting

In late 2005, a rural transportation meeting was held to present local projects to the community. TxDOT had

performed an environmental study that identified these trees on state property. The original proposal called for

removal of five trees, with TxDOT planting 10 new trees in the surrounding grove on state land.

11 Copyright 2010 Navteq; copyright 2010 Microsoft.

12 TxDOT Glossary. http://onlinemanuals.txdot.gov/txdotmanuals/glo/c.htm.

13 Texas Department of Transportation v. Kyle, No. 04‐06‐00762‐CV, May 9, 2007.


P a g e | D ‐ 9

Figure D‐5. Map of SH 16 Project.

2006:Lawsuit

In February, TxDOT’s Environmental Affairs Division classified the project as a CE needing no further environmental

study.

In May, local landowners whose property is adjacent to the intersection met with TxDOT to voice their concerns.

TxDOT amended the plans to include a guard rail that would run between the road and the trees, thus reducing

the number of trees to be removed to two.

On June 1, the landowners filed suit in state court seeking to stop TxDOT from removing any of the trees and

classifying the project as a CE. A temporary restraining order was granted, and a hearing was held on June 26.

On June 26, at the hearing’s conclusion, the judge requested the parties agree on a temporary injunction. TxDOT

immediately requested the case be removed to federal court. The state court denied TxDOT’s request and granted

the temporary injunction, stopping TxDOT from removing any tree within one‐half mile of the intersection in

question.

On October 31, the federal court also denied TxDOT’s request for removal to federal court, stating that TxDOT is

not a federal agency and was not subject to federal rules. The project’s funds did not include federal monies that

would require NEPA approval.

On November 1, the temporary injunction was renewed. Construction was completed for the remainder of the

project with the exception of the contested intersection.


P a g e | D ‐ 10

2007:StateAppeal

In early 2007, TxDOT filed an appeal stating that the state trial court was not the correct court to decide the

matter. TxDOT argued that it has sovereign immunity. However, sovereign immunity does not exist if the state is

depriving the other party of a vested property right. The court agreed with TxDOT that the landowners do not have

a vested interest because the trees are located on state land. The Fourth Court of Appeals of Texas reversed the

decision of the trial court and removed the injunction, thus allowing TxDOT to proceed. On August 1, 2007, the two

trees in question were removed. Figure D‐6 illustrates the project timeline showing when the delay began and

when the project was allowed to resume in the contested area. Additionally, Figure D‐6 shows the length of delay

the agency and the public encountered.

Figure D‐6. Historical Timeline of SH 16 Project Delay.

Costs

The project was originally estimated at $5.4 million, funded from the sale of $600 million in bonds in 2004 for

safety projects across the state.14 There was also additional cost to TxDOT that could not be explicitly identified by

this research project. In addition to those unidentified costs, the public was denied the additional safety benefits

provided by wider lanes and paved shoulders while awaiting the court’s ruling.

14 Jessica Hawley. “Trees Cause Debate in Root of Community.” The Bandera Bulletin, May 9, 2006.

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Project

Agency

Travelers

Timeline of Delay

Project in Progress

Delay

New Schedule


P a g e | E ‐ 1

APPENDIX E—TYPICAL CAUSES OF DELAY

During each stage of a project, numerous events can cause project delays. Table E‐1 summarizes the typical causes

of delay for a roadway construction project during the four major phases of a project. While the nature of delays

can vary among the four stages of a project (planning, development, contracting, and construction), the results are

quite similar: impacts on travelers and businesses.

First, with respect to delays during the planning/scoping phase, while the number of potential reasons for delay is

relatively small, the length of delay associated with these reasons can be significant. This is particularly the case if

the project becomes the subject of litigation.

Although delays during the project development phase can have numerous causes, they are typically invisible to

the public unless they have been told a project would start construction by a certain time (e.g., summer 2012). If

the construction has not started as anticipated, local stakeholders, citizens, and local media may want to know the

causes of the delay. One exception to the concept that delays during development are invisible to the public is

when litigation occurs. Such litigation mostly occurs during a statutory review process (e.g., environmental

clearance or U.S. Corps of Engineers clearance) or during right‐of‐way acquisition.

Delay during the contracting phase is typically minimal, with a project only being delayed one or two months from

the original letting date due to last‐minute procedural missteps and/or project management inefficiencies.

The public generally understands that once a project begins construction, there will be a period of inconvenience

while the project is underway. As TxDOT and local media announce the anticipated duration of construction, the

public takes a grin‐and‐bear‐it attitude, looking forward to the completion of the project. Delays during

construction, however, are the most visible and draw substantial attention.


P a g e | E ‐ 2

Table E‐1. Typical Causes of Project Delay.15

Planning/Scoping • Project priority changes in relationship to other projects • Federal/state legislation • Interagency coordination • Project management issues:

o Poor project definition o Lack of documentation of assumptions o Missed milestones

• Funding • Litigation

Development • Project management issues:

o Poor project definition o Lack of documentation of assumptions o Missed milestones

• Railroad permits not obtained as anticipated • Acquisition of necessary right of way (ROW) not completed as anticipated • Utility accommodation agreements not completed as anticipated • Mandatory review processes (e.g., environmental and fish and wildlife) not completed as anticipated • U.S. Corps of Engineers permits not obtained as anticipated • Local funding agreements not executed as anticipated • Delay in plan, specification, and estimation (PS&E) preparation (either in‐house or by consultant) • Litigation

Contracting • Unanticipated letting events (e.g., bids greatly exceeding engineer’s estimate) • Delayed assembly of PS&E/letting package • Projects pulled from letting schedule • Bid protests • Litigation

15 The information contained it Table E‐1 is a compilation of data from multiple sources:

Meeting with TxDOT, Associated General Contractors of Texas, and Highway Contractors in Austin, Texas,

June 8, 2011.

R.D. Ellis and H.R. Thomas. “The Root Causes of Delays in Highway Construction.” Transportation Research

Board 82nd Annual Meeting, Washington, D.C., January 2003.

J. Ahn and R.E. Minchin, Jr. “Identifying Causes for Delay in Highway Construction Projects.”

Transportation Research Board 87th Annual Meeting, Washington, D.C., January 2007.


P a g e | E ‐ 3

Table E‐1. Typical Causes of Project Delay (Continued).

Construction (after Contract Award) • Additional work desired by TxDOT • Additional work desired by another party • Contractor delays • Project management issues:

o Lack of communications, collaboration, and cooperation o Lack of approval authority o Coordination with stakeholders (local governments and other agencies)

• Utility conflicts/untimely utility accommodations • Unacquired ROW • Railroad conflicts (scheduling of work and project prioritization) • Permitting issues/approvals • Unforeseen project site conditions:

o Differing subsurface conditions o Archeological impacts o Endangered species impacts o Environmental impacts

• Design errors/omissions • Unfavorable weather • Insufficient work effort:

o Skilled workforce shortages o Equipment shortages o Material shortages/price increases

• Events (e.g., holidays, special events, and local events)

• Changes solely for public convenience • Act of God • Litigation

Figure E‐1 shows the percentage of total days of construction delay by cause of delay. This information was

gathered from data collected by TxDOT’s Construction Division. In FY 2009, 26.1 percent of the total days of delay

is attributable to additional work desired by TxDOT. The second biggest percentage of total days of delay is

attributable to contractor delay. In total, these two categories of delay accounted for almost half of all days of

delay.

With respect to the additional work desired by TxDOT, in most cases, the delay is more specifically associated with

having the opportunity to address a known issue (e.g., other repairs and expanding the limits) while a contractor is

on site and a contracting mechanism is in place. Contractor delays are most often associated with weather and

waiting for resolutions regarding utility relocation, ROW acquisition, and other agreements/clearances (e.g., U.S.

Corps of Engineers, potential wildlife area impacts, and unknown/potential archeological sites).

Figure E‐2 shows the same dataset distributed simply by the number of projects affected by delay without respect

to the number of days involved. For example, of the approximately 870 projects closed in FY 2009, 223 had at least

one day of delay associated with additional work desired by TxDOT.

Of course, projects that experience delay may have delay caused by more than one factor. Figure E‐3 shows the

distribution of delay by cause. For example, if a project suffered a delay because of a design error by the consulting

engineering firm and then later experienced a delay due to weather, both reasons for delay are shown in this

graph. As a result, the total frequency of delay across all causes will sum to greater than 100 percent.


P a g e | E ‐ 4

Finally, while project delay almost always has cost associated with it, not all project delay is a waste of time and

public money. In many instances of project delay initiated by TxDOT, the reason for the delay is to make an

improvement in the design or construction of the project that will ultimately deliver better value to the public.


P a g e | E ‐ 5

Figure E‐1. Breakdown of Total Days of Delay by Cause, FY 2009.

26.1%

23.5%

13.2%

10.9%

6.2%4.9%

3.9% 3.8% 3.3%

1.6% 1.4% 0.8% 0.4%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

AdditionalWork

Desired byTxDOT

ContractorDelays

UntimelyUtility

Relocation

Design Error(Consultant)

Design Error(TxDOT)

AdditionalWork

Desired by3rd Party

Other UnforeseenProject SiteConditions

UnfavorableWeather

UnacquiredRight of Way

MaterialShortage

Changessolely forPublic

Convenience

Act of God

% of Total W

ork Days Delayed

Cause of Delay

Breakdown of Total Days of Delay by CauseFY 2009

Note: This chart shows the percent of projects delayed for each cause.

Projects that experienced two different causes of delay during the

project life cycle appear once in each category. Therefore, some

projects may appear twice. This analysis only includes projects that

had the Final Estimate approved in FY 2009. Delay information

obtained from TxDOT.

Total Days of Delay: 35,141

Total Bid Days for Projects with Delay: 84,365

Total Bid Days for All Projects: 164,288

Note: This chart shows the percent of projects delayed for each

cause. Projects that experienced two different causes of delay during

the project life cycle appear once in each category. Therefore, some

projects may appear twice. This analysis only includes projects that

had the final estimate approved in FY 2009. Delay information

obtained from TxDOT.


P a g e | E ‐ 6

Figure E‐2. Number of Delayed Projects by Cause, FY 2009.

223

201

72 70 70 70

50 50

3324

186 4

0

50

100

150

200

250

AdditionalWork

Desired byTxDOT

ContractorDelays

UntimelyUtility

Relocation

Design Error(TxDOT)


UnforeseenProject SiteConditions

UnfavorableWeather

Other AdditionalWork

Desired by3rd Party

MaterialShortage


Convenience

Act of God UnacquiredRight of Way

Number of Projects

Cause of Delay

Number of Delayed Projects by Cause in FY 2009

Note: This chart shows the number of projects delayed for each cause. Projects

that experienced two different causes of delay during the project life cycle

appear once in each category. Therefore, some projects may appear twice. This

analysis only includes projects with the final estimate approved in FY 2009.

Delay information obtained from TxDOT.

Total Projects Delayed: 424

Total Projects: 868

Percentage of Projects with Delay: 49%


P a g e | E ‐ 7

Figure E‐3. Percent of Delayed Projects by Cause, FY 2009.

52.5%

47.3%

16.9% 16.5% 16.5% 16.5%

11.8% 11.8%

7.8%5.6%

4.2%1.4% 0.9%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

AdditionalWork Desiredby TxDOT

ContractorDelays

UntimelyUtility

Relocation

Design Error(TxDOT)


UnforeseenProject SiteConditions

UnfavorableWeather

Other AdditionalWork Desiredby 3rd Party

MaterialShortage


Convenience

Act of God UnacquiredRight of Way

Percent of Projects

Cause of Delay

Percent of Total Delayed Projects by Cause in FY 2009

Note: This chart shows the percent of project delayed for each cause.

Projects that experienced two different causes of delay during the project

life cycle appear once in each category. Therefore, some projects may

appear twice. This analysis only includes projects with the final estimate

approved in FY 2009. Delay information obtained from TxDOT.

Total Projects Delayed: 424

Total Projects: 868

Percentage of Projects with Delay: 49%


P a g e | F ‐ 1

APPENDIX F—DELAYED PROJECTS STUDIED

Project location information, before‐and‐after average vehicle speed, and other information were required to

determine both direct and indirect costs associated with project delay. Therefore, TTI researchers analyzed

projects in the Austin, San Antonio, El Paso, Houston, and the Dallas/Fort Worth areas only because the MPOs in

these regions provided the minimum data requirements needed for a robust analysis. The list of projects examined

is included in Table F‐1.

TTI researchers obtained travel demand data provided by large MPOs to calculate speed differentials from

improved vehicle movements. Researchers used travel demand data obtained from these projects to develop total

cost of delay scenarios for small, medium, and large projects. The specific projects with reported delays used in

this analysis were obtained from DCIS, TxDOT’s Construction Division, and select TxDOT districts. Note that “TTA”

in Table F‐1 refers to the Texas Turnpike Authority.


P a g e | F ‐ 2

Table F‐1. List of 26 Delayed Projects Studied by Total Bid.

Rank District CSJ Highway Length (Miles)

Project Description Bid (Total Obligated Amount)

Project Phase When Delay Occurred

Total Days of Delay

1 TTA 3136‐01‐126 LP 1 1.7 Convert non‐freeway to freeway $107,960,584 Construction 99

2 TTA 0683‐06‐015 SH 45 1 Convert non‐freeway to freeway $103,017,730 Construction 528

3 TTA 0683‐01‐069 SH 45 2.5 Widen non‐freeway $101,577,358 Construction 187

4 Dallas 1068‐04‐083 IH 30 4.7 Widen from six to eight lanes and add interchanges $96,841,618 Construction 156

5 San Antonio 0072‐12‐159 IH 10 1.5 Reconstruct IH 10 410 Interchange (crossroads) (Phase 2) $82,237,875 Construction 332

6 Dallas 0048‐08‐037 IH 35E 9.8 Upgrade to standards freeway $62,597,022 Construction 273

7 San Antonio 0072‐12‐130 IH 10 3.1 Upgrade to standards freeway $61,990,150 Construction 256

8 Houston 0177‐05‐057 US 59 2.6 Widen to eight main lanes and two three‐lane frontage roads $49,231,631 Design

9 Houston 0177‐05‐057 US 59 2.6 Widen to eight main lanes and two three‐lane frontage roads $49,231,631 Construction

10 Houston 0027‐08‐108 US 90A 0.9 Widen to eight‐lane divided with improvements at ditch H $39,243,649 Construction 51

11 Fort Worth 0134‐08‐030 US 380 10.5 Reconstruct two lanes to four‐lane divided rural $36,540,038 Design

12 Houston 0027‐08‐144 US 90A 1.3 Widen to eight‐lane divided with diamond interchange at Dulles $21,881,454 Construction 86

13 Houston 0179‐03‐024 SH 35 7.7 Widen to four‐lane divided rural $19,702,202 Construction 201

14 Fort Worth 0902‐48‐708 CS 3.4 Widen from two‐lane to four‐lane divided urban highway $19,069,431 Design

15 Fort Worth 0081‐02‐045 US 377 2.9 Reconstruct to four‐lane divided urban $12,983,276 Construction

16 San Antonio 0521‐06‐124 IH 410 3.7 Rehab existing main lanes and reconstruct shoulders $12,388,367 Construction 243

17 Houston 0523‐10‐033 FM 1488 2.7 Widen two lanes to four‐lane divided (Pass Through Financing) $11,463,848 Design

18 Houston 0179‐01‐028 SH 35 4 Widen to four‐lane divided, widen bridges, and install new bridges $10,716,917 Design

19 Houston 0179‐01‐028 SH 35 4 Widen to four‐lane divided, widen bridges, and install new bridges $10,716,917 Construction

20 Austin 0114‐04‐048 US 290 3.8 Widen to four‐lane divided rural section $10,716,016 Construction 162

21 Fort Worth 3125‐01‐010 FM 3029 1.1 Reconstruct and widen from five to six lanes with raised median $9,873,767 Construction

22 Austin 0204‐01‐049 US 79 1.5 Widen non‐freeway $9,351,883 Construction 384

23 Houston 0027‐08‐108 US 90A 0.9 Widen to eight‐lane divided with improvements at ditch H $9,238,220 Design

24 Fort Worth 1068‐01‐187 IH 30 1.6 Reconstruct to four‐lane divided with raised median $8,559,000 Construction 434

25 Dallas 2374‐04‐046 IH 20 12.3 Rehab existing freeway $7,870,576 Construction 69

26 Fort Worth 0718‐02‐025 FM 156 1 Widen to four lanes with continuous left‐turn lane $7,502,998 Construction

Assessing the Costs Attributed to Project Delays · Assessing the Costs Attributed to ... 2009 and...

Documents

Transcript of Assessing the Costs Attributed to Project Delays · Assessing the Costs Attributed to ... 2009 and...